Karnataka High Court
S.L.Ghasti vs State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2013
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
HON' BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL.P NO 11563 OF 2013
BETWEEN
S.L.GHASTI
CPC BUCLE NO. 730,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. POLICE QUARTERS SANKESHWAR
TALUK : HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. Smt : ANAND.L.SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF RELEASING THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL, FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109, 177, 225B, 420, 465, 468,
471, 34 OF IPC IN SANKESHWAR P.S. CRIME NO.291/2013
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner is combatant police official posted to serve at Sankeshwara police station facing charge for offence punishable under Sections 177, 225B, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC along with others in Crime No.291/13.
2. Apprehending his arrest, he seeks direction to the investigating officer to release him on bail.
3. The case papers reveal that on 29.8.2013, the PSI, Bellary, who inspected Sankeshwara police station received intimation from Superintendent of Police, Udupi that one Santhosh Krishna Poojary was released on parole based on the recommendation of the complainant who is working as Sub Inspector and SHO of the police station. On verification, it was found the communication sent from the police station purported to be under the signature of PSI, Bellary was forged establishing the act of forgery. He registered a case in Crime No. 291/13 against the official working in the police station for the alleged forged signature of the PSI, in connivance with 3 others to get him parole on a false report that his mother was suffering from serious ailment. However, the prosecution received the correct information that petitioner is indulging in the act of shaking the law enforcing agency, such a person cannot be granted the relief of anticipatory bail, as his interrogation is necessary. Prima facie, it is clear that he is indulging in nefarious activities to get him parole. In the circumstances, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
4. The petition is therefore rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Msu